{"id":78376,"date":"2008-03-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-03-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sekar-vs-state-by-on-12-march-2008"},"modified":"2014-11-07T08:33:29","modified_gmt":"2014-11-07T03:03:29","slug":"p-sekar-vs-state-by-on-12-march-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sekar-vs-state-by-on-12-march-2008","title":{"rendered":"P.Sekar vs State By on 12 March, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
P.Sekar vs State By on 12 March, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 12\/03\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU\n\nCRIMINAL APPEAL (MD)NO.627 OF 2000\n\n\nP.Sekar\t\t\t\t\t..  Appellant\n\n\nVs.\n\n\nState by\nThe Inspector of Police,\nManapparai Police Station,\nManapparai,\nTrichy District.\t\t\t\t..  Respondent\n\n\n\n\tThis criminal appeal is preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the\njudgment of the learned I Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial\nMagistrate, Trichy made in S.C.No.139 of 1999, dated 27.01.2000.\n\n!For Appellant  ... Mr.E.Somasundaram,\n\t\t    Legal Aid Counsel\n\n\n^For Respondent ... Mr.N.Senthurpandian, APP\n\n\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
(The judgment of the court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)<\/p>\n
\tChallenge is made to the judgment of the learned I Additional Sessions
\nJudge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli made in S.C.No.139 of 1999,
\nwhereby this appellant ranked as first accused along with two others, shown as
\nA-2 and A-3, stood charged as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\tA-1\t\t\t– S.302 IPC
\n\tA-2 and A-3\t– S.114 r\/w S.302 IPC
\nOn trial, the first accused was found guilty under Section 302 IPC and sentenced
\nto undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000\/-, in default to
\nundergo 6 months R.I., while the accused Nos.2 and 3 were found not guilty and
\nthey were acquitted of the charge levelled against them. Hence, this appeal has
\nbeen filed at the instance of the first accused.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated
\nthus:\n<\/p>\n
\ta)P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased Palanisamy and they were living at
\nVellivadi village within the jurisdiction of the respondent police station. The
\nfirst accused is the brother, the second accused is the mother and the third
\naccused is the sister of the deceased. One juvenile Kalarani is also the sister
\nof the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
\tb)On the date of occurrence, namely on 31.07.1998, at about 10.00 a.m.,
\nthere was a quarrel in between the first accused and the deceased in connection
\nwith the sharing of water from the common Well. At that time, the first accused
\nbrought an aruval from his house and attacked the deceased and caused injuries.
\nThe severely injured was taken to the Manapparai Government Hospital, wherefrom
\nhe was taken to the Tiruchirapalli Government Hospital, where he died on
\n02.08.1998.\n<\/p>\n
\tc)The occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws.1,4,5 and 6.  Immediately, P.W.1
\nproceeded to the Manapparai Police Station at about 2.00 p.m. and gave Ex.P.1,
\nthe complaint to P.W.9, the Sub Inspector of Police. On the strength of the
\nsame, P.W.9 registered a case in Crime No.556 of 1998 under Section 307 IPC.
\nEx.P.9 was the F.I.R. The severely injured was sent to the hospital along with
\nthe memo. On the very day at about 3.00 p.m., the second accused came to the
\npolice station and gave Ex.P.10, the complaint, on the strength of which a case
\ncame to be registered in Crime No.557 of 1998 under Sections 341 and 323 IPC and
\nEx.P.11 was the F.I.R. in that regard. Both the F.I.Rs. were despatched to the
\nCourt. The accused were sent for medical treatment along with the memo.\n<\/p>\n
\td)On 31.7.1998, P.W.3, the Doctor attached to Manapparai Government
\nHospital gave treatment to Palanisamy and sent him to the Tiruchirappali
\nGovernment Hospital for further treatment. On the same day, he also medically
\ntreated A-2 and has issued Ex.P.3, the wound certificate. The first accused was
\nalso medically examined by P.W.3 and Ex.P.4, the wound certificate was marked to
\nthat effect. P.W.3 has also medically treated one Kalarani and has issued
\nEx.P.5, the wound certificate.\n<\/p>\n
\te)P.W.10, the Inspector of Police of the said circle, on receipt of the
\ncopies of both the F.I.Rs, took up the investigation and proceeded to the place
\nof occurrence. He made an inspection in the presence of the witnesses and
\nprepared Ex.P.6, the observation mahazar and Ex.P.12, the rough sketch. He also
\nrecorded the statements of the witnesses. On 01.08.1998 at about 13.00 hours, he
\narrested A-1, A-3 and one Kalarani in the presence of the witnesses. The first
\naccused voluntarily came forward to give confessional statement, which was
\nrecorded in the presence of the witnesses. The admissible part of the same was
\nmarked as Ex.P.7, pursuant to which he produced M.O.1, aruval, which was
\nrecovered under a cover of mahazar. Then, the accused were sent for judicial
\nremand.\n<\/p>\n
\tf)On intimation from the Tiruchirapalli Government Hospital on 02.08.1998
\nthat the injured died in the hospital, P.W.10 altered the case into Section 302
\nIPC and Ex.P.14, the altered F.I.R. was despatched to the court. Then, he
\nproceeded to the hospital and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased
\nin the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.16, the
\ninquest report. Following the same, the dead body of the deceased was sent for
\nthe purpose of post-mortem.\n<\/p>\n
\tg)P.W.2, the Doctor attached to the Tiruchirapalli Government Hospital, on
\nreceipt of the requisition, has conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the
\ndeceased and he has noted the injuries in Ex.P.2, the post-mortem certificate,
\nwherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and
\nhaemorrhage due to the injuries sustained.\n<\/p>\n
\th)Pending investigation, P.W.10 arrested the second accused on  10.08.1998
\nin the presence of the witnesses and she was sent for judicial remand. So far as
\nthe case in Crime No.557 of 1998 was concerned, it was closed as mistake of
\nfact. All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence, from the
\ndead body of the deceased and the M.Os. recovered from the accused were sent for
\nchemical analysis by the Forensic Science Department, which resulted in two
\nreports, namely Ex.P.20, the Chemical Analyst’s report and Ex.P.21, the
\nSerologist’s report. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating
\nOfficer has filed the final report.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and necessary charges
\nwere framed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution marched 10
\nwitnesses and relied on 21 exhibits and 3 M.Os. On completion of the evidence on
\nthe side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313
\nCr.P.C. procedurally as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence
\nof prosecution witnesses, which they flatly denied as false. No defence witness
\nwas examined. The trial court heard the arguments advanced and took the view
\nthat the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt in respect of
\nthe first accused and found him guilty under Section 302 IPC and awarded life
\nimprisonment along with fine and default sentence. So far as A-2 and A-3 are
\nconcerned, the trial court took the view that the prosecution has not proved the
\ncase beyond reasonable doubt and hence, it acquitted them of the charge levelled
\nagainst them. Hence, this appeal has arisen at the instance of the first
\naccused\/appellant herein.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel
\nwould submit that the case of the prosecution was that at about 10.00 a.m. on
\n31.07.1998 at the place of occurrence, on the abetment of A-2 and A-3, who
\nfacilitated the crime, A-1 attacked his brother and caused severe injuries; that
\nthe severely injured was originally taken to the Government Hospital, Manaparai
\nand therefrom, he was taken to the Tiruchirappalli Government Hospital, where he
\nsuccumbed to injuries; that the prosecution has relied on the evidence of
\nP.Ws.1,4,5 and 6 as eyewitnesses; that P.W.1 is closely related to the deceased
\nand thus, if the test of careful scrutiny is applied, her evidence will not
\nstand the test, since the evidence of the eyewitnesses is not only contradictory
\nto each other, but also self inconsistent; that the lower court was not prepared
\nto accept the evidence of the same witnesses in respect of A-2 and A-3 and
\nhence, it has acquitted them in respect of the charge levelled against them, but
\nit has found the first accused guilty; that what were all reasons applicable for
\nnot believing those witnesses in respect of A-2 and A-3, were equally applicable
\nto the first accused also and hence the first accused should have also been
\nacquitted.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.Added further the learned counsel that the occurrence has taken place at
\nabout 10.00 a.m., but the report has been given at about 2.00 p.m. and thus,
\nthere was a delay of four hours; that the police station, where the case has
\nbeen registered and the court are situated in the same place, but the F.I.R. has
\nreached the court at about 4.00 p.m. and thus, there was a delay; that in
\nEx.P.1, the complaint, it is found that P.W.1, first of all, went to the police
\nstation along with the injured and therefrom, she went to the hospital, but in
\nthe evidence, she has stated that she directly went to the hospital; that P.W.3
\nwas the Doctor, who gave treatment to the injured at the Manapparai Government
\nHospital; that according to P.W.3, he was conscious and oriented also; that if
\nto be so, he should have made some statements to P.W.3, the Doctor and the same
\nshould have been recorded in the accident register, but neither original
\naccident register was produced nor the copy thereon and thus, the non production
\nof the accident register in respect of the deceased at the Manapparai Government
\nHospital would be fatal to the prosecution case; that according to P.W.3, the
\ndeceased was conscious and he was in speaking condition; that the occurrence has
\ntaken place on 31.07.1998 and he died only on 02.08.1998 and thus, he lived
\nnearly for two days; and that if to be so, when his condition was so serious,
\nthere could not be any impediment to call the Judicial Magistrate concerned to
\nrecord the dying declaration, but it was not done so.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.The learned counsel would further submit that in the instant case,
\ninconsistencies were noticed; that further, the medical opinion canvassed was
\nnot in favour of the prosecution; that the medical theory warrants that post-
\nmortem should be done completely, but in the instant case, a perusal of the
\npost-mortem certificate would reveal that it was done partly and in respect of
\nthe head only, it was done and in respect of the other parts, no post-mortem has
\nbeen conducted; that according to the prosecution, on arrest of the first
\naccused on 01.08.1998, he gave confessional statement, pursuant to which M.O.1,
\naruval was recovered; that according to P.W.1, when she went to the police
\nstation, the first accused was actually found there and thus, that part of the
\nevidence has become false, which should have been rejected; and that all put
\ntogether would go to show that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond
\nreasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.Added further the learned counsel that in the instant case, even as per
\nthe evidence adduced through the eyewitnesses, there was a wordy altercation
\nregarding the sharing of water and the incident has followed the same; that as
\nper the evidence of P.Ws., it was the deceased, who pushed both the women folks
\ndown and they fell down and hence, due to provocation, the first accused took
\naruval and attacked the deceased and thus, there was a quarrel and provocation
\nand hence, the act of the first accused would not attract the penal provisions
\nof murder and therefore, these legal aspects have got to be considered by this
\ncourt, if the court is of the view that the prosecution has proved the other
\nfacts of the case.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.The court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above
\ncontentions and has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.The fact that one Palanisami, the husband of P.W.1, following an
\nincident that took place on 31.07.1998 at about 10.00 a.m., was taken to the
\nManapparai Government Hospital and thereafter, he was taken to the Government
\nHospital, Tiruchirappalli, where he died. Following the inquest, the dead body
\nwas subjected to post-mortem. P.W.2, the Doctor, who conducted post-mortem, has
\ngiven his categorical opinion that the deceased would appear to have died out of
\nthe injuries sustained externally and the corresponding internal injuries. The
\nfact that the said Palanisami met homicidal death was never questioned by the
\nappellant and hence, the prosecution has proved the said fact leaving no doubt.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the first
\naccused, the prosecution has rested its case on the evidence of P.Ws.1,4,5 and
\n6, as eyewitnesses. True it is that P.W.1 was closely related to the deceased.
\nBut, on that ground, her evidence cannot be discarded, but it should be
\nsubjected to careful scrutiny. Despite exercise of the test, the court is
\nthoroughly satisfied that her evidence inspired the confidence of the court.
\nP.Ws. have spoken in one voice to the fact that regarding the sharing of water
\nfrom the common Well, there was a wordy altercation and in that process, the
\nfirst accused has taken aruval, attacked the deceased and caused grievous
\ninjuries. From their evidence, it would be clear that the injured was taken to
\nthe Government Hospital, Manapparai immediately and as per the advise of the
\nmedical person, he was taken to the Tiruchirappalli Government Hospital, where
\nhe was given treatment and despite treatment, he died on 02.08.1998. At this
\njuncture, the medical opinion canvassed through the post-mortem Doctor stood
\nfully corroborated with the ocular testimony. Apart from that, in the instant
\ncase, the fact that it was the first accused who attacked the deceased and
\ncaused severe injuries and as a result, he died remained proved.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.Now, the criticisms levelled by the learned counsel for the appellant
\nagainst the prosecution case have got to be considered. According to him, there
\nwas a delay in registering the F.I.R. and also there was a delay in reaching the
\nF.I.R. to the court. The occurrence has taken place at about 10.00 a.m. on
\n31.07.1998 and the report was given at 2.00 p.m. The distance between the scene
\nof occurrence and the police station was 15 Kms. The court is of the considered
\nopinion that they are villagers and the time gap that was taken to cover the
\ndistance from the village to Manapparai Police station is quite natural in the
\nordinary course of events.  The report was given at 2.00 p.m. and after
\npreparation of the F.I.R., it reached the court at about 4.00 p.m. and thus, no
\ndelay is noticed.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.So far as the comment that was made as to the non production of
\naccident register from the Manapparai Government Hospital is concerned, even as
\nper the evidence, immediately the deceased was given first aid and as per the
\nadvice of the Doctor, he was taken to the Tiruchirappalli Government Hospital,
\nwhere he was admitted and was given treatment also. There is also sufficient
\nmaterial to indicate that he succumbed to injuries at about 4.30 p.m. on
\n02.08.1998. P.W.3, the Doctor at Manapparai Government Hospital, has given
\nevidence that the deceased was conscious and was oriented. But, nowhere he has
\nstated that any statement was given by him or it was recorded by any official.
\nUnder these circumstances, the non production of the accident register copy or
\nnon recording of dying declaration would in no way affect the case of
\nprosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.In the instant case, P.W.1 has given the complaint to P.W.9, the Sub
\nInspector of Police, who registered the case and P.W.1 was the eyewitness and
\nthus, she was competent to give the first information, wherein she has narrated
\nthe entire story. The added circumstance is the registration of case in Crime
\nNo.557 of 1998 under Sections 341 and 323 IPC on a complaint given by A-2. A-2,
\nin her complaint, has stated that she was attacked by the other party. Both the
\ncases registered in Crime No.556 of 1998 at the instance of P.W.1 and Crime
\nNo.557 of 1998 at the instance of A-2 would clearly reveal that the occurrence
\nhas taken place on 31.07.1998 at 10.00 a.m. at the place of occurrence, as put
\nforth by the prosecution, in which the accused were available. On investigation,
\nthe Investigator found that Crime No.557 of 1998 was to be closed as mistake of
\nfact and Crime No.556 of 1998 was to be proceeded with. The injuries that were
\nsustained by the accused were superficial and simple. All the records pertaining
\nto Crime No.557 of 1998 were produced before the court, perused and considered.
\nEven the wound certificates of the first and second accused were also produced
\nand they were considered. Thus, it was a case where the prosecution placed all
\nthe records pertaining to Crime Nos.556 and 557 of 1998, for the scrutiny of the
\ncourt. Hence, all the comments made by the learned counsel for the appellant
\nhave got to be rejected. Hence, the prosecution had sufficient evidence pointing
\nto the guilt of the first accused\/appellant that it was he who cut the deceased
\nwith aruval and caused grievous injuries and as a direct consequences, he died.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.So far as the second line of argument is concerned, the court is able
\nto see force in the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the
\nappellant. It is not in controversy that the occurrence has taken place at about
\n10.00 a.m. on 31.07.1998. At the time of occurrence, even as per the evidence
\nadduced by the prosecution, there was a wordy altercation between the first
\naccused and the deceased, regarding the sharing of water from the common Well.
\nThe added circumstance was that the deceased pushed down A-2 and A-3 and they
\nfell down. Under these circumstances, due to quarrel and sudden provocation, the
\nfirst accused attacked the deceased with aruval. Hence, the act of the first
\naccused would not attract the penal provisions of murder, but it would be one
\nculpable homicide not amounting to murder. The act of the first accused would
\nattract the penal provision of Section 304(I) IPC and awarding a punishment of 7
\nyears R.I. would meet the ends of justice.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant\/first
\naccused by the lower court under Section 302 IPC are set aside and instead, the
\nappellant\/first accused is convicted under Section 304(I) IPC and sentenced to
\nundergo seven years R.I. The period of sentence already undergone by the
\nappellant is ordered to be given set off. The fine amount imposed on the
\nappellant under Section 302 IPC shall be treated as fine amount imposed under
\nSection 304(I) IPC. It is reported that the appellant\/first accused is on bail
\nand hence the concerned Sessions Judge shall take steps to secure and commit him
\nto prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.With the above modification in conviction and sentence, this criminal
\nappeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
vvk<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The I Additional Sessions Judge-cum-\n<\/p>\n
   Chief Judicial Magistrate,
\n  Tiruchirapalli.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Inspector of Police,
\n  Manapparai Police Station,
\n  Manapparai,
\n  Trichy District.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
\n  Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court P.Sekar vs State By on 12 March, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12\/03\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU CRIMINAL APPEAL (MD)NO.627 OF 2000 P.Sekar .. Appellant Vs. State by The Inspector of Police, Manapparai Police Station, Manapparai, Trichy District. .. Respondent […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-78376","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nP.Sekar vs State By on 12 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sekar-vs-state-by-on-12-march-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.Sekar vs State By on 12 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sekar-vs-state-by-on-12-march-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-03-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-11-07T03:03:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-sekar-vs-state-by-on-12-march-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-sekar-vs-state-by-on-12-march-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.Sekar vs State By on 12 March, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-07T03:03:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-sekar-vs-state-by-on-12-march-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3088,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-sekar-vs-state-by-on-12-march-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-sekar-vs-state-by-on-12-march-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-sekar-vs-state-by-on-12-march-2008\",\"name\":\"P.Sekar vs State By on 12 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-07T03:03:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-sekar-vs-state-by-on-12-march-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-sekar-vs-state-by-on-12-march-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-sekar-vs-state-by-on-12-march-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.Sekar vs State By on 12 March, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"P.Sekar vs State By on 12 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sekar-vs-state-by-on-12-march-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.Sekar vs State By on 12 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sekar-vs-state-by-on-12-march-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-03-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-11-07T03:03:29+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sekar-vs-state-by-on-12-march-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sekar-vs-state-by-on-12-march-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.Sekar vs State By on 12 March, 2008","datePublished":"2008-03-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-07T03:03:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sekar-vs-state-by-on-12-march-2008"},"wordCount":3088,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sekar-vs-state-by-on-12-march-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sekar-vs-state-by-on-12-march-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sekar-vs-state-by-on-12-march-2008","name":"P.Sekar vs State By on 12 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-03-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-07T03:03:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sekar-vs-state-by-on-12-march-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sekar-vs-state-by-on-12-march-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sekar-vs-state-by-on-12-march-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.Sekar vs State By on 12 March, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/78376","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=78376"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/78376\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=78376"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=78376"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=78376"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}